|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:49 pm
x_Hikari_x Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Jeremiah is not relevant, as it deals with a specific case not relatable to that of the population of a whole; a prophet.
Unless of course I interpreted the meaning of that wrong, which is not entirely impossible sweatdrop Jeremiah WAS a special case; he was created specifically to turn the Israelites back to God, after punishment. This pre-destined creation is clearly not relatable to the population at large.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:57 pm
Faith Fairy Abortion was not legalized to be convenient for women who didn't wish to be pregnant for trivial reasons, nor was it legalized so doctors could murder unborn infants (leaving aside for now that "unborn infants" is an oxymoron). It was legalized because so many women are so desperate not to be pregnant sometimes that they will actually harm themselves or kill themselves trying to abort the pregnancy, which still kills the fetus anyway. Doctors fought for the legalization of abortion so such desperate women could legally and safely have the abortions and still live lives that could reproduce later.
However, I firmly believe that only women that desperate should have them (either because the pregnancy threatens the woman's health or life, or because being pregnant was not her fault such as in rape cases). Abortions such as these should be done in the first trimester only, just as Nature/God does abortions routinely (1/4 of all pregnancies abort themselves, usually in the first trimester, for reasons often known only to God, which we call miscarriages). After the first trimester, if the pregnancy must end to save the mother, all attempts to save the fetus should be made so that it has a chance at life, which could be very good given todays medical miracles! The bolded section is the one that ALWAYS pops up when people say "I'd only legalize abortion for rape." I have a problem with this idea of "It's not her fault", because it turns pregnancy and children into a punishment for sex, which ends up being implied as a bad thing. If you truly CARED about the children, you wouldn't legalize abortion for rape. Aren't rape babies just as human? Instead, you take the focus away from the child, and you decide whether abortion should be legal or not based on the history of the mother; whether she was raped or did it consensually. That's a BIG problem. Either legalize abortion for EVERYONE, or don't legalize it at all. I, of course, believe it should be legalized, for reasons I've given many times already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:49 am
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The bolded section is the one that ALWAYS pops up when people say "I'd only legalize abortion for rape." I have a problem with this idea of "It's not her fault", because it turns pregnancy and children into a punishment for sex, which ends up being implied as a bad thing. If you truly CARED about the children, you wouldn't legalize abortion for rape. Aren't rape babies just as human? Instead, you take the focus away from the child, and you decide whether abortion should be legal or not based on the history of the mother; whether she was raped or did it consensually. That's a BIG problem. Either legalize abortion for EVERYONE, or don't legalize it at all. I, of course, believe it should be legalized, for reasons I've given many times already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:34 pm
Are we not all pre-destined to do something? Does God not have a plan for us all? Jeremiah could have not done what God asked of him. All of us are called to do something...pre-destined, if you will, but not all of us choose to do something. Samson was pre-destined to be a Nazarite...he fell away from that path many times. John the baptist was pre-destined, as were many others. Does that make them more special? God says he formed us in our mother's womb...why would He not see us as people while still unborn? Does He take credit only when we have taken our first breath?
I just don't see how Jeremiah could be considered a special case, when he was just as human as the rest of us. God had a plan for his life, and He does for everyone else. God just made Jeremiah's life-plan known a little better than He does for some people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:39 pm
x_Hikari_x Are we not all pre-destined to do something? Does God not have a plan for us all? Jeremiah could have not done what God asked of him. All of us are called to do something...pre-destined, if you will, but not all of us choose to do something. Samson was pre-destined to be a Nazarite...he fell away from that path many times. John the baptist was pre-destined, as were many others. John the Baptist was placed on Earth to fulfill a prophecy. Samson was placed to fulfill a prophecy. Both of these people were directly important to life's plot. As for the rest of us, God has plans for us, but those do not include pre-destiny. Or rather, who's to say that some fetii are predestined to be aborted? Quote: Does that make them more special? God says he formed us in our mother's womb...why would He not see us as people while still unborn? Does He take credit only when we have taken our first breath? God takes credit for EVERYTHING. God created animals; we still eat meat. God created plants; we still harvest crops. However, neither plants not animals have souls. God does not give even humans souls until they have taken their first breath; see the definition of nephesh here: http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/RCRC_EdSeries_Fetus.pdfQuote: I just don't see how Jeremiah could be considered a special case, when he was just as human as the rest of us. God had a plan for his life, and He does for everyone else. God just made Jeremiah's life-plan known a little better than He does for some people. And how do you know what God's plans are? They could very easily include abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:48 pm
Faith Fairy Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori The bolded section is the one that ALWAYS pops up when people say "I'd only legalize abortion for rape." I have a problem with this idea of "It's not her fault", because it turns pregnancy and children into a punishment for sex, which ends up being implied as a bad thing. If you truly CARED about the children, you wouldn't legalize abortion for rape. Aren't rape babies just as human? Instead, you take the focus away from the child, and you decide whether abortion should be legal or not based on the history of the mother; whether she was raped or did it consensually. That's a BIG problem. Either legalize abortion for EVERYONE, or don't legalize it at all. I, of course, believe it should be legalized, for reasons I've given many times already. The thing is, if you only allow abortion in the case of rape, you're more or less saying that a life is less valuable just because of how it is created. The foetus that is created from rape doesn't deserve the same chance as the foetus that was created from consentual sex. Forbidding abortion for women who got pregnant through consentual sex but allowing it in the cases of rape ceases to be about caring for the life of a potential human being. It starts to just be about punishing women with a human child for having the audacity to spread their legs. You can't call yourself pro- life when your stance on abortion has nothing to do with the potential life in question. Also, allowing abortion only in the case of rape as some serious practical problems. How does a woman prove that she's really been raped? All rape kits can prove is that a woman has had intercourse recently. Trials take a long time, and less than half of them end in a conviction. Rape is a hard crime to prove in a court of law. And a system that just takes women at their word would be abused left and right. So, not only is such a stance morally questionable, in my eyes, but it's also a far cry from being practical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:58 pm
I am pro-life.
You can always give the baby up for adoption if you can't or don't want to raise it. Many people are on the waiting list to adopt new borns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:25 am
hmmmm................ interesting conversation. It's true we are not spirtual robots. God designed us and allowed us to make choices. I think that's were He recieves His joy, when we choose His Way. However, in our society, I think it's interesting we have laws against allowing people to take drugs because it's harmful to themselves and others, but we allow the killing of unborn children. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:31 am
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori I am pro-choice. 1. America is secular. This means that we cannot force people to follow our religion, and we must abide by the constitution. That Constitution states that everyone born or naturalized in the United States has the right not to be subjected to harm against their will. Any woman who does not wish to carry a child, yet is being forced to, is being violated. However; some will say that a fetus has the right not to be subjected to harm against its will. There are two things wrong with this: A fetus cannot state its will, the mother has to make decisions for it, and fetii have not been born into the United States and are therefore not protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, a fetus cannot feel pain until the third trimester. This means that the only defense against abortion is that a fetus has a "soul" from conception. That defense is obviously religiously based. 2. The Bible does not say that a fetus has a soul from conception. In fact, the Old Testament treats fetii as mere property. Exodus 21:22-25 When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Furthermore, in Genesis, man does not live until he takes his first breath: Genesis 2:7 7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Clearly, the Bible is not pro-life, and neither is the Constitution. Genesis 2:7 7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. What if god gives the child the breathe of life while still in the mothers womb? Or even as it starts developing within the mother right after it begins development? Its really kind of hard to tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:53 pm
Zher Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori I am pro-choice. 1. America is secular. This means that we cannot force people to follow our religion, and we must abide by the constitution. That Constitution states that everyone born or naturalized in the United States has the right not to be subjected to harm against their will. Any woman who does not wish to carry a child, yet is being forced to, is being violated. However; some will say that a fetus has the right not to be subjected to harm against its will. There are two things wrong with this: A fetus cannot state its will, the mother has to make decisions for it, and fetii have not been born into the United States and are therefore not protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, a fetus cannot feel pain until the third trimester. This means that the only defense against abortion is that a fetus has a "soul" from conception. That defense is obviously religiously based. 2. The Bible does not say that a fetus has a soul from conception. In fact, the Old Testament treats fetii as mere property. Exodus 21:22-25 When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Furthermore, in Genesis, man does not live until he takes his first breath: Genesis 2:7 7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Clearly, the Bible is not pro-life, and neither is the Constitution. Genesis 2:7 7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. What if god gives the child the breathe of life while still in the mothers womb? Or even as it starts developing within the mother right after it begins development? Its really kind of hard to tell. But, it doesn't. Babies don't breathe until they are born. Did you not see the verse I cited on the status of fetii?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:35 pm
I'm pro-life.
I guess the reason would be because I don't like abortion. I think that if you don't really want to be a parent then you can always give it up for adoption. I think that if the mother's life is in danger then it is okay because that is saving a life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:42 pm
ryokomayuka I guess the reason would be because I don't like abortion. I don't like strawberry ice cream. Now I'm going to pass a law saying no one can have strawberry ice cream. Your likes and dislikes should not be forced on other people by the government. ryokomayuka I think that if you don't really want to be a parent then you can always give it up for adoption. Yeah, because, nine months of child-bearing followed by birth sounds like so much fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:35 am
i am mainly against abortion
but there are exceptions like you got pregnant while you were sick and it could severely damage the fetus and the child would live in pain for years in a short life
ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:40 pm
Cyberpunk Hero ryokomayuka I guess the reason would be because I don't like abortion. I don't like strawberry ice cream. Now I'm going to pass a law saying no one can have strawberry ice cream. Your likes and dislikes should not be forced on other people by the government. ryokomayuka I think that if you don't really want to be a parent then you can always give it up for adoption. Yeah, because, nine months of child-bearing followed by birth sounds like so much fun. But that's how all laws are passed. People don't like to have their things taken so that's why it's against the law to steal. All laws are based on poeple morals and likes. I know that it would be hard to be pregnant give birth and then give it up. At least the infant is alive and has a chance at life. I never said it was fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:19 am
ryokomayuka But that's how all laws are passed. People don't like to have their things taken so that's why it's against the law to steal. All laws are based on poeple morals and likes. No, it isn't. If it were, brussel sprouts and gay midget porn would be outlawed. But they aren't. Laws are designed to protect people. Not to force them to live how you want to live. ryokomayuka I know that it would be hard to be pregnant give birth and then give it up. At least the infant is alive and has a chance at life. I never said it was fun. So then why do you want to force people to do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
